>> deep in my heart, my heart is broken because i would have loved to have continued being the beaver cleaver family. i would have loved to continue being married to frank because i loved that man with all my heart. and that man loved me at some point, but it was obviously a change in who he was and is. this sunday, a shot in the arm. >> i feel like healing is coming. >> americans begin receiving pfizer's covid vaccine. >> it's safe. it's s okay. and we need to do it. >> a little bit of a sore arm, a little aching muscle, but no fever, headache, or anything unusual. >> and omoderna's vaccine is o the way. >> this is the most significant accomplishment in medicine over the past, you know, 100 years. >> but the pandemic iskn raging with more than 300,000 americans now 3 dead. >> i have to be the one that says, i'm sorry, you can't come to seey, your loved one. >> i'll talk to the former and likely future surgeon general, vivek murthy. plus, compromising science.

two former cdc officials go public with claimsia the trump administration put politics over science and blunted efforts to fight the pandemic. >> decisions are being made outside of the scientific world about people with no expertise. >> kyle mcgowan and amanda campbell join me this morning in their first television interview. also,on that suspected russn hack. >> this is huge across the board. you cannot underestimate its significance. >> a u growing list of governme agencies, private companies, and think tanks targeted, a scope never before seenta and not ful understood. >> really the modern equivalent of almost of russian bombers reportedly flying undetected over the entire country. >> i'll talk to senator mitt romney of utah. joining me for insight and analysis are nbc news chief white house correspondent hallie jackson, rich lowry, editor of "national review," and yamiche alcindor, white house correspondent for pbs newshour.i

welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the n longest runni show in television history, this is "meet the press with chuck todd." >> good sunday morning. there are two ways to look ate the covid-19 crisis today. once again, there is real reason for r optimism. americans have begun receiving the pfizer vaccine, and this weekend, moderna's vaccine was authorized for emergency use, adding millions more doses to be rolled out starting this morning, especially in more rural parts with normal freezers. all this offers the kindor of he we've beenth longing for throughout this crisis. at the same time, though, the pandemic continues to tear through the country, the four highest covid case counts since the coronavirus hitco were recorded just last week, as were four of the eight highest daily death totals, including the top two. as we've noted, we're now experiencing a 9/11 every day, and it's worse than a 9/11 on some days. after september 11th, the

government created a commission to study what went wrong. how did we miss the clues? our question this morning -- is it time tohi establish a 9/11-le commission to study how significant parts of our government missed this, chose to dismiss the obvious danger, making it impossible for health officials to do their jobs? some things undeniably have gone right, like those vaccines created by our scientists in record-breaking time, but there are many other areas to probe, like why was the nationwide covid testing system so deeply flawed, or the consequences of a president who spent his energy denying the pandemic, mocking safety measures like mask-wearing and social distancing, or allegations that the trump administration increasinglyni exerted influenc over the cdc's messaging and data to play down the severity of the virus? our resulting loss of trust in government will only make it harder to fight this pandemic at the veryt moment people need t beop persuaded to take the vacce and bring this horror to an end.

>> we expect to have more dead bodies than we have spaces in morgues for them. >> as the coronavirus crisis gets worse -- >> we haveor patients just waitg for days for a bed. >> -- so does another crisis, trusts in government. already declining for decades, now chippedcl away by the feder government's massive failure in handling the pandemic. this week, two former cdc officials, kyle mcgowan and amanda campbell, went public, charging political interference with the agency and pressured a wat to water down guidance. paul alexander installed by president trump pushed for a herd immunity strategy, writing in ara july email -- infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle-aged with no conditions, et cetera, have zero to little risk, so we use them to develop herd. we want them infected. >> you'll develop like a herd mentality. it's going to be herd developed. >> last week, another cdc official testified that director robert redfield told her to destroy an email from alexander

showing he attempted to interfere with weekly reports on the virus he believed were unflattering to president trump. >> decisions are being made outside b of the scientific wor about people with no expertise. >> the political meddling has eroded trust in the agency. in a gallup poll, 31% of americans saypo the cdc has communicated a, quote, clear plan of action in response to covid. 33% say the same of president trump. >> the american people trust you on the pandemic when you're contradicting the head of the cdc and your own administration? >>an because of the good job wee done. >> the politicizing of the virus has turned public officials into public punching bags. at least 181 state and local public health leaders have resigned, retired or fired since april 1st, according to an investigation by the "associated press" and kaiser health news. >> one woman said, using very foul language, somebody needed to shootfo me and another perso

volunteered to take that task on. >> other colleagues, other friends that wereak working in public health had their cars broken into, had been followed home, had rocksn thrown throug the building. >> now, as the federal government begins a push to persuade americans to be vaccinated -- >> make nors mistake about it, it's a medical miracle. >> -- 18% of americans say they definitely will not get the vaccine, and the vaccine distribution effort is already facing complaints of mismanagement. >> where are our doses? what is holding them up? >> there is no problem with the process. there is no problem with the pfizer vaccine. there is no problem with the moderna vaccine, right? it was a planning error, and i am responsible. >> well, joining me now is the 19th former surgeon general of the united states who has been tapped by president-elect biden to become the 21st surgeon

general. it's dr. vivek murthy. dr. murthy, welcome to "meet the press." and i want to start with some reporting to see if you can give some clarity about some reporting s my colleagues did, when wemy noted that biden advisers are warning that the trump mass vaccine timeline may be too optimistic. dr. oomurthy, are you one of the biden transition officials that are concerned about the vaccine timeline by the trump administration?e >> well, chuck, it's good to be with you today. and youth know, unfortunately, this is a grave moment for our country and this pandemic. look, i think when it comes to the vaccine timeline, we all want the vaccine to be delivered as quickly, as fairly as possible, and you can be sure that every day and night that myself and others on the biden team are working toward that end, but we also want to be realistic, you know, about the timeline. i think that, you know, if we -- if everything goes well, we may see a circumstance whereby late spring, people who are in lower-risk categories can get

this vaccine, but that would really require everything to go exactly on schedule. i think it's more realistic to assume that itis may be closer midsummer or earlyos fall when this vaccine makes its way to the general population. so, we want to be optimistic, but we want to be cautious as well. >> right. look, the president-elect made a 100 million vaccinations in the first 100 days. is that timeline a realistic timeline? >> well, again, i think that, you know, is it doable? yes, i think we can too it, but what we've got to do is we've got to prepare and be ready to executive, and that's actual what's happening right now. for the last many weeks, many of us who are on the covid team have been working with suppliers and working with folks inside the administration as well and with other partners that we're going to need in order not just to produce the vaccine, chuck, but actually deliver it and get it into the arms of people all across this country. this is going to be and will be the most aggressive and ambitious vaccination campaign

we have attempted in this country's history, and that's why we're working hard to make sure that we're ready on day one to execute. >> how would you describe the cooperation you're getting? i known you're among the leade of the incoming team that's going to handle the virus going forward. what would you sayvis the leve cooperation you're getting from the white house coronavirus task force? >> well, it's been improving over time. you know, we still have more information that we need to gather, many more conversations that we need to have, but i'm glad that those are finally happening. i also want to point out that many of the people we're talking to, you know, are career officials who are going to be there after january 20th. these are partners thatth many us,ne including myself, know an have worked with in the past. so, being able to get information asle quickly as possible, rebuild and restart those working relationships are absolutely critical right now.th >> i want to ask you about a concerning headline out of the uk, and that is that they have a more virulent strain of

covid-19. what do you know about this strain and how concerned are you about it spreading here in the united states, or do we have mutations that are similar to the uk is dealing with? >> well, chuck, this news from the uk is about a strain of the virus that, according to the uk, appears to be more transmissible and more contagious than the virus that we have seen circulating prior to this. it's important toul mention a couple things, though. while its, seems to be more easy trance missible, we do not have evidence that this is a more deadly virus to an individual who acquires it, and there's no reason to believe that the vaccines that have been be effective not against this virus asot well. the bottom line isis, if you'ret home and you're hearing this news, it does not change what we do in terms of precautions as individuals that can reduce the virus. of this it turns out that masking, that keeping physical distance, washing our ephands, these are still the pillars of preventing

covid transmission. >> on vaccine prioritization, look, there seems to be universal agreement -- frontline medical workerssa and those in senior facilities. it's the next line that seems to be a debate. and this is not easy, this ethicalsy debate. essential workers versus 65-plus. the death toll among 65-plus is obvious, and there's the case there. obviously, essential workers can't do the mitigation that others can. how will the biden administration deal with this dilemma? >> well, chuck, you're right that these aren't easy questions to answer. and i thinkio the more open and transparent we are with the public about anthis, the better. we need to have these discussions in the light of day. we need to be able to get public input on some of these decisions. but ultimately, what should drive these decisions should be fact,si should be ethical consideration, should beet sciee and expertise. and that's why we're eagerly

waiting the inbound input of ace yip, the advisory council on immunization practices and input from the cdc. but regardless of how this rolls out, what's clear is we've got to make sure we've got enough supply, that we have both the logistical systems in place as well as people and materials to be able to deliver that vaccine quickly. if we put these together, then we can rapidly get people in our country toid the level of herd immunity, and that is ultimately what will let us get back to living our lives, which is what we l all want. >> it is what we all want. dr. vivek murthy, thank you for coming on. ik hope you have a safe and healthy holiday and new year and fingersan crossed that this vaccinating processhi only gets smoother. thank you, sir. >> thank you so much, chuck. best to you. turning now to what appears to be theno largest hack of the u.s. government ever. secretary of state mike g pompe admitted friday, quote, we can say pretty clearly that it was the russians who were

responsible. but just as the trump administration seemed ready to speak with one voice on the subject, president trump tweeted that, perhaps, china was responsible. there is no evidence china had anything to do with this hack. a who's who of government agencies were penetrated and remain compromised by the security breach that officials are calling,se quote, a grave rk to the federal government. well, joining me now is republican senator mitt romney of utah. senator romney, welcome back to "meet the press." and you made a very impassioned plea for the president, in particular, to speak out, the administration to speak out on what was going on with this russian hack. secretary pompeo did do that. i imagine what the president tweeted about china is not what you thought needed to be done. what do you make of the president's decision, i guess, to speculate on an alternative theory? >> well, you're absolutely right. i was disappointed in the

president's comment. but i think we've come to recognize that the president has a blind spot when it comes to russia.re and the reality here is that the experts, the people who really understand how our systems work and how computers work and software and sork forth, the thousands uponrt thousands at t cia and the a nsa and the department of defense have determined that this came from russia, and it is an extraordinary invasion of our cyberspace. and the implications of this, as tom bossert, who was president trump's, if you will, adviser, with regards to homeland security -- he egsaid, look, yo cannot aioverstate how serious this is. ita mean, they basically had th capacity to know what we're doing. they even got into the agency that's responsible for our nuclear capacities, for our research with regards toti nuclc weaponry. this is an extraordinarily damaging invasion, and it went on for a long, long time. >> you know, you brought up the president, and you were, i a

think, very charitable when you called it a blind spot. look, he came into office downplaying what thee russians did in 2016wn and is leaving office now downplaying what the russians do. we went through the impeachment process during ukraine, which was arguably him embracing a russian disinformation campaign there. is there a point where you start to wonder, this is more than a blind spot? >> well, i'm not going to psychoanalyze the president, but i think he feels that anything that suggests thatha russia is being malevolent or not treating him with the respect he r deserves, why, he obviously backs away from that. he doesn't want to recognize russia as the problem they are and the extraordinarily bad actor they are on the world stage becausere it reflects pooy on him, at least, perhaps, in his own mind. and the reality is, russia really is a geopolitical adversary. they go against us on every front.

they have nowev invaded our cyberspace again. they kill people in their own country, whether it's politicians or media people. and we have to recognize, you know, we made -- i made fun of hillary clinton saying thatfu w would have a reset with russia. we've got theit same problem in this administration, which is we've not been a serious enought the very top about how damaging an adversary russia can be. >> what is the line between espionage and an act of war, and where does this fall? >> well, this basically -- i mean, i'll step back to respond to that and say, look, you remember about 20 years ago, as we a attacked baghdad, you saw e videos of the rockets going across the citye and then slamming into various buildings, and the places they attacked, of course, were the communications centers and the utility centers, because you can bring a country to its knees if people don't have electricity, don't have water and can't communicate. and basically, what russia

appears to have done is put themselves in those systems in our country. they don't need rockets to take those things out. they potentially have the capability to take out all of those things and a doing it remotely at i very small cost. so, this is a very dangerous and damaging invasion of cyberspace, which has enormous national security implications. and as bossert indicated, it's going to take us months, if not years to understand how far they got. so they're not just gathering information. they potentially have the capacity to cripple us economically. they went into our businesses. they have the potential to also cripple us with regards to our water and electricity and so forth. so, this is very, very serious. >> but i guess the question about the espionage and act of war, i want to ask it this way -- i do we live in a glass house on this issue? isn't our goal to have similar capabilities inside the russian government and their networks? >> well, i think what this invasion underscores is that

acted with impunity. they didn't fear what we would be able to do from a cyber capacity. they didn't c think that our defense systems werek particularly adequate. and they, apparently, didn't think that we would respond in a very aggressive way.re and i think all those things have to be addressed. i think we have to be much more serious about our cyber capabilities, offensive and defensive. and i think we have to have ae rethink about that at h the department of defense as well as our otherns agencies. and i think we have to have a very clear-eyed approach to how we deal with russia going forward. this demands a response. and the response you'd expect to occur would be a cyber response. i don't know if we have the capacity to do that in a way that would be of the same scale or even greater scale than what russia hasth applied to us, but this is something we have to address as soon as possible. >> you know, and that seems to -- apparently, we tried to respond a couple of times. whether it was sanctions -- didn't work. then vice president biden told

me directly that the american public mightth not know our response butot that we were definitely going to inflict some damage. is this something that actually the world should actually see this time, that whatever response there is, the world needs to i know, in order to pu other folks i on notice? >> yeah, i don't care so much if the rest of the world knows. those that are inside the governments of various countriee will know what we did or did not do.d they know what we did after the lastdi russia incursion into ou cyberspace. and so does russia. and d obviously, that was insufficient for them to take a different course. make sure that what we do is of a scale and of a nature that they say, okay, not doing that again. and that's not something we have been able to demonstrate yet. >> quickly on covid. i'm going to be speaking with a couple of former cdc officials that are going to speak out on what happened with messaging and the white house interference at the cdc. and it raises a question.

we have over 300,000 folks that have died from this. we, clearly, had a harder time with this pandemic than most of the western world. do we need an iraq study group, 9/11 commission, you know, pick your comparative in history, to figure out what went wrong and how we prevent this from happening again, but a commission, you know, something like, you know, with two leading figures, a chris christie, jeh johnson, jeb bush, you know, people like that? >> well, i'm not sure whether it's a commission or not, but we certainly need to study what we could have done better and prepare for the next pandemic, because there will be another one, hopefully not very, very soon. and so,er we have to do the this that are necessary to prevent the kind of mistakes that we made this time. there's no question, we made all sorts of mistakes. and at this stage, we're getting into the next phase, which is the vaccination phase. we've got to get that right, because this thing can go on foc a long time, unless people get vaccinated and are able to get back to work. and by the way, you heard the good news, which is that we have

apparently been able to solve the issues with regards to a covid relief package, and we're going to be able to get help to the american people who need it right now. >> very i quickly. in 2012, you won 47% of the popular vote, more than donald trumpmo won in 2016 or 2020. and in 2013, the republican party thought they had to do an after-action report to figure out why you lost. and in 2020, the republican party's not talking about that, despite a republican nominee that performed less well than you did. what explains that? >> well, i believe the republican party has changed pretty dramatically, and by that, i mean the people who consider themselves republican and voted for president trump i think is a different cohort than the cohort that voted for me, not entirely, of course, but in many ofrespects. we lost a lot of suburban voters. we attracted a lot of blue collar democrats that had voted for democrats forever before that. and i think the parties, you

look at those that are thinking about running in 2024, is trying to see who can be the most like president trump, and that suggests that the party doesn't want to take a different direction, it wants to go in that same direction, but perhaps with some differences, of course, because personalities are odifferent. i don't think anyone who's looking atn' running in 2024 ha then kind of style and schtick that president trump has. i mean, he is a unique and capable hepolitician. so, there will be some differences in personality, but i think theff direction you're seeing is one that he set out, and i don't see a different course being considered by those that are looking for 2024. >> you're still comfortable in -- are you comfortable in that version of the republican party? >> no, i'd like to see a different version of the republican party, but my side is very small these iddays. you know, i think over time our party will gravitate back to the principles that formed it. you know, i think we are a party committed to pushing back on

nations like russia, authoritarian regimes. i think we're aau party that recognizes we need to balance our budget. i think, ultimately, we're individuals that say we welcome legal immigration. we don't denigrate people who are coming from other countries. i think we recognize that characterha actually does count. so, theseoe things, i think, wi once again have ascend enancy within my party, but i think it will be a while. >> senator mitt romney from utah, let's hope this gets across, run through the tape as they say. hope you have a happy holiday season andav happy new year's, sir. >> thanks, chuck. good to be with you. when we come back, two former cdc officials who say the trump administration has crushed the agency by politicizing science and messaging. they join me next. politicizing science and messaging. they join me next. [♪]

every time you touch a surface, bacteria is left behind. now, consider how many times your family touches the surfaces in your home in 24 hours. try microban 24. spray on hard surfaces to kill 99.9% of viruses and bacteria initially, including the virus that causes covid-19. once dry, microban forms a bacteria shield that keeps killing bacteria for 24 hours, even after multiple touches. try microban 24. this has been medifacts for microban 24.

from the start of the pandemic, president trump and his administration have been accused of playing down the severity of the crisis. and as we mentioned earlier, two former officials at the cdc

charge the administration with substituting politics for science, softening regulations to protect business, and generally, handicapping the agency. well, those two former officials join me now. kyle mcgowan is the cdc's former chief of staff, and the former deputy chief of staff, amanda campbell. kyle and amanda, thank you both for being here. the best way i feel like to go through this interview is to pick out certain events that took place over the last year, and i hope you guys can give us some context. the first big moment where there seemed to be some fight between the white house and the cdc was when nancy messonnier, who was the director of the cdc's national center for immunization, essentially, correctly predicted on february 25th that this virus was going to cause a major disruption in life, stock market falls. the result from that is hhs gets sidelined, cdc gets sidelined, mike pence. kyle mcgowan, how significant was that moment? >> well, first off, chuck, i just want to thank you for

having the two of us with you today. and i also want to thank all of the dedicated men and women at the cdc who continue to work every day to make sure that we get out of this pandemic as quickly as we possibly can. they are the people who truly make the cdc the world's most premier public health institution. and to your question, it was very concerning. and that was just the very beginning with dr. messonnier. nothing she said didn't come true, and nothing she said was false. and as amanda and i worked in the spring and summer, we saw more and more the administration wanting a larger say in the messaging that was coming out of the cdc. and when that messaging, you know, clashed with the science, the messaging won. and you know, it's our hope moving forward that the cdc will be able to again talk directly

to the american people. >> amanda, i want to fast-forward to june. the cdc puts out guidelines for schools. the president tweets he disagrees with them. tell us what happens next, what happens behind the scenes? >> well, i just want to thank you as well, chuck, for having us here today. you know, when kyle and i went to the cdc, we were there to be a bridge between the cdc and washington and really to provide them with political support that hadn't quite existed there before and to support the incredibly important work that the public health experts there do on a daily basis, and it truly was an honor and a privilege of a lifetime to be able to work alongside them. and you know, throughout the course of the summer and during our time there, we did see more and more often individuals across the administration commenting on the guidance that the cdc was trying to put out. and you know, unfortunately,

that often led to delays, and in some cases, in that particular instance, with the president tweeting out, you know, it led to us having to go back and make changes and do additional guidance in order to provide the right information and more information, really, to the american people. but really, what was so critical during that time and what was needed was cdc to be able to get information out quickly to the american people so that they could make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones. and it's our hope that moving forward they're going to be able to do just that. >> right. kyle, i want to go to try to -- in august, the month you chose to resign -- in august was this dust-up when, suddenly, there were guidelines coming from the cdc that were mixed messaging on whether asymptomatic people needed testing. it was all happening at the same time the president was complaining about essentially too much testing. i'm curious, was that your

breaking point? >> no, that wasn't. i think, you know, amanda and i have said all along that we will continue to work in public health and continue to support the cdc in the best way that we can. we had a wonderful ability early on, prior to the pandemic, to be able to support large initiatives at the cdc, including the ending hiv epidemic, opioids, and many things. and then when we got to the pandemic, and frankly, the meddling that was coming out of the administration, we were, you know, not able to do the job that we were sent there for. and you know, that was -- there was no single breaking point, i would say. but in that summer in august -- or that time in august is when amanda and i started, you know, talking about how we would leave. >> amanda, it's my understanding you guys have met with some of the biden transition officials,

essentially to provide your thoughts, your expertise at what you saw what needs to change. so, what is one or two reforms that you'd like to see done that helps restore the cdc's good name? you saw those poll numbers. when you're down to 31% trusting what's coming out of the cdc, and this was an agency that sort of had been above politics for most of my lifetime. how does that get restored? >> yeah, thank you for that question. you know, it's important to remember that cdc is the world's premier public health agency. and that's because of the men and women who work there. and they are the same men and women and dedicated professionals that were there at the start of this pandemic, that have worked tirelessly throughout it to protect the american people and who are going to be there as we get through this. but it's so critically important that we, moving forward, are able to provide the cdc both the political support that they need to be able to do their job, to

be able to communicate directly to the american people again, as kyle said, but also, the financial support that they need to do their jobs. unfortunately, we've seen administrations and congresses in the past fund public health and knee-jerk reactions, if you will, funding for zika and ebola to say, fix a problem for us, but not having long-term, sustained funding for public health. because you have to remember, too, 70% of all the funding that goes to cdc is actually going out to the states, supporting our public health infrastructure. and they have to have that funding in order to do the important things that we've seen we need moving forward based on this response, which is we need to modernize our public health data. we need more laboratory capacity. and we need a modernized public health workforce. so, i hope that the biden administration will consider all of those things. >> kyle mcgowan, amanda campbell, proof that there are plenty of political appointees

who put public service first, too. thanks for speaking out. thanks for coming on here and sharing your perspective with us. >> thank you for having us. >> thank you. >> you got it. when we come back, how should the u.s. respond to this catastrophic security hack? do we even know how to respond? the panel is next. nd the panel is next.

welcome back. the panel is joining us. nbc news chief white house correspondent hallie jackson, rich lowry, editor of "the national review," and yamiche alcindor, white house correspondent for pbs newshour, who was just named journalist of the year by the national association for black journalists. congratulations, yamiche. i am here to make sure i am embarrass you because i know your mom's watching. >> thank you so much. >> so, congrats on that. hallie, let me start with the hack and the president's response. >> sure. >> in some ways, incredibly predictable, right, over the totality of this administration that you've been covering.

but i'm curious, what is happening around him? how concerned are the national security folks? robert o'brien cut short a trip that he was taking overseas to deal with this. >> right. >> what is happening behind the scenes in the west wing? >> right. so, i will tell you, chuck, there is, you're right, for the national security apparatus, this is a big deal. you laid it out in your interview with senator romney earlier in the show. this hack is nothing that can be sort of buried under the rug, nothing that can be overlooked. but what is the president focusing on, chuck? i can tell you that from a source that i've talked to just recently, the president is incredibly focused not on this hack, right, not on the response to it, but on what he feels has been this stolen election, an election that he lost. he is fuming about it. he is talking about it. he is almost obsessed with it, according to folks that i've talked to who are familiar with his thinking. that is where his mental energy is right now, not on this issue of national security that is facing this country. that is immensely frustrating to those around him, including, chuck, members of congress who feel like they simply aren't getting enough information.

we have been hearing for days now that the impact of this hack is still being assessed, right? there have been statements. this is ongoing. it seems like the administration does not have a handle on just how bad this hack was yet, as we continue to get sort of the drip, drip, drip, on a daily basis of where else the suspected russian intelligence service may have gotten into, may have breached in this country. lawmakers want to know more information. they had hoped for a briefing even this weekend because they were so dissatisfied with the briefing they just had on the hill, and this includes some republicans, not just democrats. i will tell you, though, every time -- and you're right, this administration, the trump administration, started with concerns that the president was not tough enough on russia. it is ending with concerns that the president is not tough enough on russia. and whenever i bring this up to folks that are close to the president, his allies, they go, here you go, media, russia, russia, russia. boy, it's the depiction, right, of the media who cried wolf. well, chuck, the wolf is in federal agencies now. the wolf has breached the wool.

>> let me quickly play for you how congress put the briefing and put words to what hallie just said. take a listen. >> we are very disturbed we didn't get the information we wanted. >> very disappointing. it's like pulling teeth. >> their briefings were obtuse, sorely lacking in detail. >> according to "the new york times" than there was in that room. >> so, thomas massie saying he learned more from "the new york times," not surprising when it comes to intel briefings on capitol hill. but rich, you wrote, essentially, what i would call is an enough is enough editorial here about the president's behavior, and that was before that, you know, that was three days ago, just as we're learning about this hack. i mean, this presidential behavior, i've lost -- i've lost the ability to find an adjective to describe it. >> well, there are a couple hallmarks of the entire administration, how he's handled this -- one, extremely defensive about russia and wanting to deny

russian misconduct. two, the president sort of stands outside of his administration oftentimes and acts as though he's just commenting on it and has nothing to do with it. and the fact is, despite what he said, despite his posture, the u.s. government has taken this threat very seriously, and it just -- it happened to be the things we were focused on were the wrong things. we were very focused on defending the election, actual did a good job on that, very focused on defending against malware attacks. it's just that this was something different. he used a so-called trusted tool to intrude in all these systems, and it's very concerning that u.s. government agencies didn't discover this, intelligence officials didn't discover this. it was discovered via an automated warning at a private company that very easily could have been ignored. so, there's just no substitute for even more robust defenses than we have now in this realm. >> and yamiche, the issue of deterrence. you know, the president-elect in october of '16 sat down with us

right before that election, and i talked -- i asked him about sending russia a message for what they did in 2016. here's what he told me then. sort of like in baseball, you throw a high, hard one to send a message. why haven't we sent a message yet to putin? >> we're sending a message. we have the capacity to do it, and the message -- >> he'll know it. >> he'll know it. and it will be at the time of our choosing and under the circumstances that have the greatest impact. >> so, a message is going to be sent? will the public know it? >> i hope not. >> so, yamiche, i mean, this is proof. and look, we know, supposedly, the trump administration did, you know, went after a troll farm in russia, too. whatever we've done either in the end of the obama era or during the trump era has not worked. >> that is clear. and what we hear now from president-elect biden is this

idea that russia's going to have to pay a substantial cost. that's what he said this week in a statement, for these activities. even if it's different from what president trump does, and it might be something that, of course, is more strenuous because the president has really wanted to, as mitt romney just told you, had a blind spot for russia. he does not want to recognize them as an adversary. the big question coming for the biden administration is going to be, how are you going to handle russia? fiona hill told "the newshour" this week that what we really need is a cohesive response to russia, we really need our allies in the united states working together. we need officials that are on the same page. what we've seen is a president who has continued to be really personally offended by anybody saying that russia's an adversary. we've seen the president take the word of putin over his own national security apparatus, and this all comes down to the president not wanting his personal legacy to be questioned, not wanting his win in 2016 to be questioned. even now as we see republicans and democrats demanding that the

president do more, be more strenuous, be more hard on russia, the president just can't get himself there. president trump can't do it. president-elect biden is going to try. >> very quickly, rich, is mitt romney right in some ways? do you think once donald trump disappears, the republican party will find its spine on russia again? >> i think there's going to be a long struggle over where the party is on a lot of things, including that. and i think the president's influence in the party's going to be very long-lasting. the conventional scenario is that he'd lose and very quickly his influence would wane. that hasn't happened. strangely, his grip on the party has even strengthened since he lost the election. >> despite, again, the numbers that i pointed out to senator romney and numbers you're about to see in a minute here. when we come back, why republicans are learning to love the electoral college now more than ever. that's next. an ever. that's next. before you go over the river and through the woods this holiday season.

remember, safe drivers save 40% with allstate. saving is easy when you're in good hands. call a local agent, or 1-800-allstate for a quote today. stnarrow it to all thes ikarate moms... in desperate need of brown sugar. meaning, you. you're the one we made mywalgreens for. with pickup in as little as 30 minutes. hiya! get 30-minute pickup at walgreens.com

♪ welcome back. "data download" time. despite what president trump might say, the 2020 election is behind us. states have officially certified the vote, and joe biden won 306 electoral votes. but one debate does linger, did president biden win by a lot or by a little? the answer is both. first, take the popular vote this year. biden won by a sizable amount, 4 1/2 percentage points and 7 million raw votes. as we noted, that is the second largest percentage point margin since year 2000, second only to obama/biden in 2008. but let's look at the three states that put biden over the top in the electoral college and compare that to the three states that gave donald trump the presidency in 2016. as many disappointed democrats have pointed out for four years, mr. trump won pennsylvania, wisconsin, and michigan by a total of just under 78,000

votes, a pretty small margin. but biden won them by about 43,000 votes combined, an even smaller margin to an already small margin. so, biden won by 7 million votes but flipped less than 1% of that margin in three states and he loses the election. this is part of the reason democrats loath the electoral college these days and republicans love it. here's another way to look at it. consider the 2000 election. even outside of florida, the election was extremely close. in eight states, the winning candidate's margin was less than 3.5 percentage points reflecting the national popular vote, where the margin was just 547,000. now compare that to 2020. there were still eight states where the winning candidate's margin was within 3.5 points, different states, mostly, but the national popular vote was a whopping 7 million! in fact, biden's entire popular vote margin came from just two states -- california and new york. the more that democratic votes are packed into just a few

states, the more republicans can win the electoral college while losing the popular vote. the result, don't count on republicans calling for an end to the electoral college any time soon. it's a reminder, on the popular vote, we're a center-left nation, but our institutions like the electoral college keep us center-right. when we come back, how will the horrible year of 2020 be remembered and how will it change us? remembered and how will it change us? every minute. understanding how to talk to your doctor about treatment options is key. today, we are redefining how we do things. we find new ways of speaking, so you're never out of touch. it's seeing someone's face that comforts us, no matter where. when those around us know us, they can show us just how much they care. the first steps of checking in, the smallest moments can end up being everything. there's resources that can inform us, and that spark can make a difference. when we use it to improve things,

then that change can last within us. when we understand what's possible, we won't settle for less. the best thing we can be is striving to be at our best. managing heart failure starts now with understanding. call today or go online to understandheartfailure.com for a free heart failure handbook. call today or go online to understandheartfailure.com robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

welcome back. it's fair to say that when, even

50 years from now, you'll be able to say 2020, and it will invoke plenty of images in your head, in the same way that just saying the year 1968 does for certain -- for americans over the age of 50. so it's tough to do what i'm going to ask you guys to do. but yamiche, 2020, it's this consequential year. there's so many ways to try to dissect this. how do you look at it? how is it -- it's obviously going to change us. what are you looking for going forward? >> the pandemic, obviously, is the thing that was the hallmark of 2020. there was so much mourning, so much loss, so much sadness in this country, and there was a presidency that really failed to meet the moment in ways objectively speaking, because the president downplayed the virus, he didn't take it seriously. in large part, based on my reporting, why he lost the election. i think you couple the pandemic's terrible loss with the political upheaval, and i

also want to point out the statistic that i think continues to stick with me, which is that african-americans are more than 2 1/2 times, 3 times more likely to die than white americans of the coronavirus pandemic in the same year that african-americans are some 2 1/2 times to 3 times more likely to be killed by the police than white americans. so, this was also a year where the pandemic exposed the longstanding inequalities in this country, and it showed that african-americans and people of color continue to not be treated as equal citizens in this country. so, i think that that is the thing that sticks with me. it's those dual crises of health care and economy as well as the racial reckoning that continues to happen. >> yeah. it was an mri for that, for us. the question is, after we see this mri, do we do something about it? that's going to be a test. rich lowry, what say you about what 2020 looks like, say 20 years from now? >> well, obviously, covid the biggest story, the health effects, the political effects, presidential election easily could have gone differently if it hadn't been for the pandemic,

and the economic effect, hammering people lower down the income scale in a way that will take them years to recover and then widening the cultural divisions. and i think, chuck, this is the year it just became undeniable, we are living in an era of poisonous political contention on par with the 1790s, the 1850s, late '60s, early '70s, when neither side is of a mood or state of mind to say the other side is legitimate and considers the other side a threat to our -- a fundamental threat to our system. >> hallie jackson, you've had a unique front-row seat yourself, covering this administration. and in some ways, i think the perspective will only be greater the farther away you get from it. but what are you focused on as we look ahead? >> so, i think one thing, chuck, that started and is sort of the natural logical, or perhaps illogical conclusion of something that happened on this show two days after the inauguration, when president trump took office, and that is,

kellyanne conway -- i know you remember this -- talking to you about alternative facts, in that instance as it related to i think inaugural crowd size and the incorrect comments, the incorrect claims by then press secretary sean spicer. we are four years later now reaching peak alternative factsism, and i'm looking very closely what the long-term impact of that is going to be, because we are seeing it now crystallized this year into not just the poisonous discourse that i think rich is correctly talking about, but almost this division into two separate realities here in this country. we've seen it as it relates to the health of americans with this pandemic and the concern, the skepticism, the public health experts are so worried about with people not taking covid seriously, not believing the science, not believing the data. we've seen it with the health of this democracy and people also in this country, those who especially support president trump, believing not in the sort of foundational structures that hold our democracy up but believing what president trump has said instead. here we are four years later and it's not just alternative facts, chuck, it's an alternative set

of realities, and that is going to have some serious, i think, impacts moving forward, not just in the political sphere, but in the cultural sphere as well. i think you're right, i think it's going to take -- i think all of us who have been covering the trump administration -- to look back and see, okay, how do you put this four years into the context of history, but i do think that's going to be a key part of it. >> you know, yamiche, what kind of appetite do you think the biden administration's going to have? you know, i talked about a covid commission. i think that's likely to happen, something like that. but i notice "the new york times" today called for something -- they didn't call it this, but it almost felt like a truth and reconciliation commission. is that something that our current politics could allow to happen? >> i think because of this thing that former president obama called truth decay, it's very hard to have a truth and reconciliation commission when americans can't agree on the truth. hallie jackson's talking about kellyanne conway talking to you about alternative facts. i remember being on "meet the press" when rudy giuliani told

you truth isn't truth, it is the thing that defined the trump administration and this era, that they wanted to completely create a new version of the truth, and so many americans, more than 75 million of them, went along with that for president trump. i'm not sure if we can get to a place where americans can sit down and say, let's talk about our differences when we can't even agree on the facts. >> excellent points, all. i really appreciate the three of you, not just this week, but all year long. you've been tremendous contributors to "meet the press" and this roundtable. thank you all for watching. that's all we have for today. all of us here at "meet the press" want to wish you a safe and joyous christmas. have a restful holiday. remember, take a mental health break, if you can, as well. we'll be back next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." press."

this is why someone like michael flynn never belongs anywhere near the white house, let alone inside the oval office and his lawyer, sidney powell. the best advice i can give the president is, keep michael flynn and sidney powell out of the oval office and then those really bad ideas will stay out of the oval office as well. >> those ideas reported lly included declaring martial law in swing states, then using a conspiracy theorist to help overturn the election. the question is, whose advice will the president take. and breaking overnight, nine months after passing the first coronavirus stimulus bill, congress finally strikes a deal on round two.